2005 (5) TMI 589 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of SIENNA FP 5000, 220 V DIGITAL PRINTER (COMPUTERISED) under heading 8471 or 9010.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed the issue of classification of the SIENNA FP 5000, a digital printer, under either heading 8471 or 9010. The Tribunal considered various arguments presented by both sides to determine the appropriate classification.

Firstly, the Tribunal noted the argument that the entity functions as an apparatus of heading 9010 and can develop a photosensitive film with the assistance of a digital Computer Command. However, the Tribunal referenced a previous case involving a photocopier working with a computer and held that similar arguments were rejected in that case. Therefore, the Tribunal did not classify the entity as a photocopier under heading 9010.

Secondly, the Tribunal considered the history of classification of similar apparatus/appliances of model FP-500 under heading 8471. Despite the claim that the model FP 5000 can both expose and develop photosensitive paper, unlike the model FP-500, the Tribunal upheld the classification under 8471 based on consistency with previous decisions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the classification opinion by the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Export, which classified the same/model under 8471. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of this opinion based on the internationally adopted Classification System and found no grounds to depart from it.

Lastly, the Tribunal examined the chapter notes 5 to chapter 84 of the Customs Tariff and acknowledged that without the use of a computer, the entity could not perform any independent function. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the classification under 8471 was appropriate and approved.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order to be logical and upheld the classification under heading 8471. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for classification under Chapter 9010 was rejected by the Tribunal.